Jimmy Brooks
Full Access Member
Slightly off topic, but was a official or semi-official reason for the change to the S/C 6 cylinder ever given?
I would assume it had to have related to LR's CAFE calculation or similar since it is literally the same block with two plugged cylinders and a S/C bolted on top.
On it's face, it always seemed bizarre to me to incur the engineering/development cost to come up with a kludgey end product that added complexity and reduced power.
I heard at the time of the change that it was "to reduce weight", but that was before we realized it was the same block with a relatively heavy additional lump of metal bolted to the top of it.
For that matter, since I have never been under the hood of a V6, are the cylinder heads the same with no intake/exhaust ports machined at the rear or are they truncated at the rear with shortened camshafts up top?
not completely sure why they cut them off. I believe since ford provided the block they decided it was cheaper then having to manufacture their own V8 with 2 different types of pistons and intake manifold for the supercharged and naturally aspirated version. So I believe it was to save money as well as make it more appealing to the people who wanted to save a bit of money on gas (even though it didn’t do all that much). In my opinion Land Rover should have thrown in a supercharged V8 into the LR4 just as an option, though it would have been unnecessary it would have been great fun especially paired with the 8 speed. I also wish they did this option for the D5 (what was supposed to be the svx). I’ve talked to so many LR and D5 owners that have told me they would have either bought the D5 with a supercharged V8 or the svx in a heartbeat if they could have. I’m still really disappointed the svx never made it to production because that car immediately stole my heart when I saw it.